OVP reports 85.55% utilization of P2-B budget in 2024
The Office of the Vice President (OVP) under the leadership of Vice President Sara Duterte utilized 85.55% of its P2.084-billion budget allocated in fiscal year 2024.
In its 2024 accomplishment report, the OVP reported that it used P1.783 billion of its budget as of December 31, 2024.
"This utilization rate [of 85.55%] is attributed to the operations and successful implementation of socio-economic services and programs of the OVP," the office said.
The OVP also logged a total of 1,780,079 beneficiaries in all its programs in 2024, with the office's free bus ride program having the highest number of beneficiaries at 1,025,275.
Aside from the Libreng Sakay program, the OVP also has a PagbaBAGo campaign with 227,958 beneficiaries, medical assistance with 154,565 beneficiaries, and Rice Food Bags with 144,808, among others.
Last year, the House of Representatives decided to reduce the 2025 budget of the OVP from the originally proposed P2 billion to P733 million amid Duterte's refusal to answer lawmakers' questions on OVP budget use, including confidential funds.
The Senate retained the House-introduced budget cut despite calls from Duterte's allies to restore some of the OVP's proposed funding for social services.
Duterte lamented the budget cut, saying that some 200 OVP personnel could lose their jobs and several projects of her office would have to be halted.
For fiscal year 2026, OVP spokesperson Ruth Castelo said the proposed budget of the OVP increased by P170 million.
Duterte's office initially made a proposal of P733 million for next year, retaining the office's 2025 budget, but the Department of Budget and Management (DBM) increased it to P803.6 million, which further grew to a total of P903 million, upon the request of the OVP. — VDV, GMA Integrated News
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
GMA Network
10 hours ago
- GMA Network
UP Law faculty members: Congress vested with prerogatives on impeachment
Individual faculty members of the University of the Philippines (UP) College of Law on Friday expressed "grave concern" on the developments regarding the impeachment of Vice President Sara Duterte, stressing that Congress is empowered with "high prerogatives" on the impeachment process. Signed by over 80 legal experts as of August 1, the five-page joint statement of the UP Law faculty members warned that the Supreme Court decision which declared the Articles of Impeachment against Duterte unconstitutional has "consequences" that create an "incentive" for filing of sham complaints to trigger the one-year bar rule. "We express our conviction that Congress is constitutionally vested with high prerogatives and thus deserves the appropriate deference in its procedures and in the conduct of impeachment. At the very least, given the House's reliance on two decades of precedents and practices, any new rules should be prospective in application," the statement read. It added, "We call on our democratic institutions to act in accordance with these fundamental principles, and to foster a full public debate on the impeachment in keeping with constitutional accountability," it added. Voting 13-0-2, the SC declared the Articles of Impeachment against Duterte unconstitutional, stressing that it is barred by the one-year rule under the Constitution and that it violates her right to due process. The Supreme Court ruled that the one-year ban is reckoned from the time an impeachment complaint is dismissed or is no longer viable. The first three impeachment complaints were archived and deemed terminated or dismissed on February 5, 2025 when the House of Representatives endorsed the fourth impeachment complaint, the SC ruled. The high court said the Senate cannot acquire jurisdiction over the impeachment proceedings. However, the SC added that it is not absolving Duterte from any of the charges against her and that any subsequent impeachment complaint may be filed starting February 6, 2026. "We the undersigned individual members of the faculty of the University of the Philippines College of law, express our grave concern with the developments in the impeachment of Vice President Sara Z. Duterte," the statement read. "[W]e warn that these recent developments undermine impeachment as an indispensable instrument of political accountability for our highest public officials," it added. 'Permanent' change The faculty members noted that impeachments are "decided only upon the simple question" of whether or not the official should continue to be entrusted with public office. Since the consequence is not civil damages nor imprisonment but removal from public office, they said, elected representatives are the ones to decide on the outcome. Noting that the Constitution provides that the House has the "exclusive power to initiate" and that the Senate has the "sole power to try and decide" all cases of impeachment, the faculty members said they share the view of the Free Legal Assistance Group (FLAG) that "over-judicialization" of the process, meaning court-like procedures are laid down for Congress, "will permanently change impeachment's nature." They also argued that the House merely followed rules set by the Supreme Court in Francisco v. House of Representatives and Gutierrez v. Committee on Justice, which defined initiation of impeachment complaint as filing the impeachment complaint before the House and referring it to the chamber's committee on justice. "This could not be an abuse of discretion, much less a grave one," the faculty members said. Any changes should be applied moving forward, they said, and not in Duterte's impeachment case. "If the Court intended to lay out new rules for the House, then the 'reliance of the public thereto prior to their being declared unconstitutional' calls for at least a prospective application of its decision and not the nullification of the House's actions," they said. Compliance by the House Further, they said judicial review is only for cases where there is abuse, but not in the Vice President's case because the House complied with rules previously set by the high tribunal. Likewise, the UP College of Law Faculty members backed former Supreme Court Associate Justice Adolf Azcuna, who had warned that the High Court's decision on the Duterte case contradicts the Constitution's intent to make impeachments easier to initiate. "The Duterte ruling has consequences that the parties themselves did not appear to contemplate," they said, noting that the plenary now has the power to block resolutions for impeachment. "The ruling creates an incentive for the filing of sham complaints to trigger the one-year bar rule—a political strategy once criticized by a justice as making 'a mockery of the power of impeachment.' Narrower rulings in the past have precisely avoided these unintended consequences," they said. Due process Further, the faculty members said the House did not violate the right of the Vice President to due process because the Senate impeachment court is the proper venue to defend herself as provided by the Constitution. "While Article 6, Section 21 of the Constitution requires the 'rights of persons appearing in, or affected by' legislative inquiries 'shall be respected,' no similar rule applies in Article 11, Section 3 on impeachment. Impeachment has thus never required the observance of due process that applies to administrative proceedings: the impeachment trial is itself the due process," they said. "This is not because the Constitution intended to be oppressive towards a respondent. Instead, and following congressional practice, the right to be heard of an impeachable officer is honored in the trial before the Senate," they added. Finally, the UP College of Law faculty members said that unlike in legal proceedings, the principal aim of impeachment is not to litigate a right of the impeachable officer, but to protect the public and enforce accountability. "A reading of the Constitution to further accountability requires a return to the paradigm of protecting the people and a reiteration of the principle that public office is a public trust—a sacred privilege, not a god-given right," they said. "As academics, our only client is the truth. And while the course of Vice President Duterte's impeachment has veered further away from discovering it, we write with hope that our democratic institutions will, with statesmanship and prudence, allow us, the people, to eventually find our way towards restoring accountability," they added. — Llanesca T. Panti/ VDV, GMA Integrated News
GMA Network
12 hours ago
- GMA Network
SC asked to reconsider VP Sara Duterte impeachment ruling
Former Presidential Adviser on the Peace Process Teresita 'Ging' Deles, Yvonne Jereza of Magdalo Partylist, and Dr. Sylvia Estrada Claudia, convenor of Tindig Pilipinas, filed a motion for reconsideration before the Supreme Court on Friday, August 1, 2025, on the impeachment case against Vice President Sara Duterte. Photo by Danny Pata Some of the individuals behind the first impeachment complaint against Vice President Sara Duterte on Friday has asked the Supreme Court (SC) to reconsider its ruling declaring the articles of impeachment unconstitutional. The petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration ad cautelam. 'Naniniwala po kami na maling-mali ang naging desisyon ng ating Korte Suprema (we believe that the reasons of the SC is very wrong),' petitioners Sylvia Estrada Claudio said in an ambush interview. To recall, three impeachment complaints were filed against Duterte in December 2024, all of which were connected with the alleged misuse of confidential funds. It was the fourth impeachment complaint that was endorsed by over one-third of lawmakers from the House of Representatives, and was later transmitted to the Senate as the Articles of Impeachment. In its ruling, the SC declared that the Articles of Impeachment against Duterte are barred by the one-year rule under Article XI, Section 3(5) of the Constitution. The SC ruled that the one-year ban is reckoned from the time an impeachment complaint is dismissed or is no longer viable. It ruled that the first three complaints were deemed terminated or dismissed when the House endorsed the fourth complaint. However, Claudio said their complaint was not initiated. This was echoed by petitioner Teresita Quintos Deles, who said that the SC previously ruled that complaints are only initiated once deferred to the House Committee on Justice. 'By the ruling of the SC itself in an earlier case na sinabi na ang initiation ay kapag na defer lang sa Justice committee. Since hindi iyon nangyari, wala talagang prior initiation,' she said. (By the ruling of the SC itself in an earlier case where it was stated that initiation happens when it is merely deferred in the Justice committee. Since that did not happen, there was really no prior initiation.) The other petitioners are Akbayan Representative Percival Cendaña, Eugene Gonzales, Yvonne Jereza, Alicia Murphy, and Filomena Cinco. Claudio called on the Senate to continue the impeachment trial. 'Naniniwala din po kami na nag overstep ng kaunti ang ating SC dahil nag simula na ang Senado. At sa amin hong pananaw ay malinaw naman ho sa Konstitusyon na ang Senado ang may karapatan, at nag simula na po sila,' she said. (We also believe that our SC overstepped a bit because the Senate had already started. And in our view, it is clear in the Constitution that the Senate has the right, and they had already begun.) 'Sa atin pong mamamayan, nananawagan po kami na pwede naman pong i-criticize ang opinyon ng kahit sinong mataas na opisyal o institusyon, kasama na po ang SC,' she added. (To our fellow citizens, we are calling on you that it is okay to criticize the opinion of any high-ranking official or institution, including the SC.) — BAP, GMA Integrated News
GMA Network
19 hours ago
- GMA Network
Jinggoy: At least 19 senators to abide by SC ruling on VP Sara impeachment
Senate President Pro Tempore Jinggoy Estrada said 19 to 20 senators are likely to adhere to the decision of the Supreme Court (SC) that blocked the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte. "Karamihan ng sentimyento ng kapwa senador ko (The sentiment of most of my fellow senators) is to abide by the ruling of the Supreme Court," Estrada said, noting that the matter was discussed during the senators' caucus on Tuesday. "Unang-una sa body language, pangalawa sa salita nila, mahahalata mo naman kung sino eh," he added. (One can discern where they stand based on their body language and their words.) Voting 13-0-2, the SC last week declared the Articles of Impeachment against Duterte unconstitutional, stressing that it is barred by the one-year rule under the Constitution and that it violates her right to due process. The high court said the Senate cannot acquire jurisdiction over the impeachment proceedings. However, the SC said it is not absolving Duterte from any of the charges against her and that any subsequent impeachment complaint may be filed starting February 6, 2026. Senate President Francis "Chiz" Escudero earlier shared his personal opinion on the matter, saying that the SC decision must be followed "otherwise, [there] will have a constitutional crisis, and our neighboring countries and other people might view us as a banana republic where we only follow what we want." Estrada echoed this, saying that the Senate is "going to flirt for a constitutional crisis" if the SC ruling is not followed. He also pointed out that the decision is immediately executory even though a motion for reconsideration (MR) may still be filed. "No more [trial] because ang sabi ng Supreme Court, ang desisyon ng Supreme Court, the Senate has no jurisdiction dahil unconstitutional ang finile ng House of Representatives. We don't have any jurisdiction anymore and the Senate will not convene as the impeachment court because we don't have the jurisdiction," the Senate President Pro Tempore explained. (There's no more trial because based on the decision of the Supreme Court, the Senate has no jurisdiction because what the House of Representatives filed was unconstitutional. We don't have any jurisdiction anymore and the Senate will not convene as the impeachment court because of that.) While he was open to hearing arguments on the matter, Estrada said his decision will not change. "Hindi because I will abide with the decision of the Supreme Court. Kahit na maganda ang kanilang dahilan, ultimately ang Supreme Court ang masusunod hindi naman sila. Unless 'pag na-file ang House ng MR at ma-reverse, we will abide with the ruling," he added. (No, because I will abide by the decision of the Supreme Court. Even if others have good reasons not to do the same, the Supreme Court has the final say, not them. Unless the House files a motion for reconsideration and the decision is reversed, we will abide by the ruling.) The Senate is set to discuss the SC decision on August 6, 2025, according to Escudero. Senator Francis "Kiko" Pangilinan earlier said he has been in talks with senators since Monday about signing a resolution he drafted with Senators Risa Hontiveros and Bam Aquino on how they can proceed with Duterte's impeachment trial despite the SC decision. Hontiveros also said a total of four senators, including herself, have signed the resolution so far, with the hope that they will gain the support of others. The House of Representatives, on the other hand, is preparing to file a motion for reconsideration on the SC decision, arguing that the ruling was based on what it described as incorrect findings that contradict official records. — VDV, GMA Integrated News
